Aortic valve neocuspidization (the Ozaki procedure)

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Aortic Regurgitation ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Aortic Valve Repair ◽  
Valve Repair ◽  
Aortic Valves ◽  
Autologous Pericardium ◽  
Bicuspid Aortic Valves

Aortic valve neocuspidization with fixed autologous pericardium according to the Ozaki technique has been proven to be an effective therapy for the treatment of aortic valvulopathies of various entities (aortic stenosis, aortic regurgitation, aortic valve endocarditis) in both tricuspid and bicuspid aortic valves. Thus, aortic valve neocuspidization with fixed autologous pericardium represents a versatile alternative to complex aortic valve repair, with better hemodynamics compared to biological aortic valve replacement and without the need for lifelong anticoagulation, which characterizes mechanical aortic valve replacement. The authors meticulously describe all the technical steps of this highly reproducible, standardized procedure.

scholarly journals Early outcomes of aortic valve repair versus replacement for aortic regurgitation: a single-center experience

2022 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed A. Amr ◽  
Elsayed Fayad
Keyword(s):  
Heart Disease ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Aortic Regurgitation ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Aortic Valve Repair ◽  
Single Center ◽  
Valve Repair ◽  
Repair Group ◽  
Rheumatic Heart

Abstract Background Aortic valve repair in rheumatic patients is not well-studied. We aimed to present our initial Egyptian experience in the aortic valve repair and compare it with the aortic valve replacement. The study included 85 patients who had an aortic valve surgery for aortic regurgitation (AR) in a single center from 2018 to 2020. We assigned the patients to either aortic valve repair (n= 39) or aortic valve replacement (n= 46). Fifty-nine patients (69.4%) had rheumatic heart disease. Study outcomes were hospital complications and the degree of aortic regurgitation after 6 months in patients who had aortic valve repair. Results Patients who had replacement were significantly older (49.6± 7.2 vs. 43.8± 8.6 years: P= 0.002) and had more advanced New York Heart Association (P<0.001) and Canadian Cardiovascular Scoring (P= 0.03) classes. Hypertension (31 (67.4%) vs. 17 (43.6%); P= 0.03) and hypercholesteremia (18 (40%) vs. 17 (18.9%); P= 0.04) were more common in the replacement group. Patients who had replacement had a significantly higher percentage of valve retraction (P<0.001). Cardiopulmonary bypass (54.5 (49.5–60) vs. 45 (41–49) min; P<0.001) and ischemic times (36.5 (31–40) vs. 30 (28–33) min; P<0.001) were longer in patients who had an aortic valve replacement. Blood transfusion (28 (60.9%) vs. 11 (282%); P= 0.003) and ICU stay (24.5 (24–48) vs 23 (20–31) h; P= 0.01) were higher in the replacement group. Hospital mortality was non-significantly different between groups. Four patients had trivial AR (10.3%), and six had mild AR (15.4%) in the repair group. There was no difference in valve pathology or outcomes in aortic valve repair patients for degenerative versus rheumatic pathologies. After a 6-month follow-up, four patients had trivial AR (10.3%), and six patients had mild AR (15.4%) in the repair group. Conclusions Aortic valve repair could be an alternative to replacement in selected patients with rheumatic heart disease. Shorter cardiopulmonary bypass and ischemic times may improve repair outcomes compared to replacement.

Are bicuspid aortic valves a limitation for aortic valve repair?

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catalin C. Badiu ◽  
Sabine Bleiziffer ◽  
Walter B. Eichinger ◽  
Iva Zaimova ◽  
Andrea Hutter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Repair ◽  
Valve Repair ◽  
Aortic Valves ◽  
Bicuspid Aortic Valves

scholarly journals Mid-term durability of polytetrafluoroethylene patches in unicuspid aortic valve repair

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 555-558
Author(s):  
Irem Karliova ◽  
Tristan Ehrlich ◽  
Shunsuke Matsushima ◽  
Sebastian Ewen ◽  
Hans-Joachim Schäfers
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Regurgitation ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Aortic Valve Repair ◽  
Valve Repair ◽  
Severe Aortic Regurgitation ◽  
Aortic Replacement ◽  
Primary Indication ◽  
Ascending Aortic Replacement

Abstract OBJECTIVES Unicuspid aortic valve (UAV) morphology is a cause for aortic valve dysfunction in childhood or adolescence. Repair requires the use of patch material, and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) has been proposed for this purpose because of lack of calcification. We reviewed our mid-term experience with PTFE for the repair of UAV to analyse the durability of this technique. METHODS Out of 21 patients with an UAV undergoing aortic valve repair for severe aortic regurgitation between 2014 and 2016, 11 patients (52%) were treated using PTFE patch material. Aortic regurgitation was present in all patients, the primary indication for surgery was regurgitation in 8, stenosis in 2 and aneurysm in 1. Symmetric bicuspidization of the UAV was performed in all. One patient required additional root remodelling for root dilatation, and another 3 tubular ascending aortic replacement. RESULTS No patient died in hospital or during follow-up. Seven patients (63.6%) required reoperation for progressive AR. Freedom from reoperation was 58% at 1 and 35% at 5 years postoperatively. At reoperation the PTFE patches were found dehisced from aortic wall and/or native cusp tissue. In 3 patients re-repair was performed; a stable result was achieved in 1. Two patients underwent valve replacement 3 months and 1 year postoperatively. The other 4 patients underwent valve replacement. CONCLUSIONS The repair of UAVs using PTFE patch is associated with poor durability, a more durable patch with better healing characteristics material is needed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document